Marine buoy weather observations (marinewatch)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond safety: it discloses output contents (categorized catalog with one-liners, call sequences), the relationship to tools/call and tools/list, and that no key is required. This goes beyond the minimum.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the no-key constraint, the no-topic behavior, the topic behavior, and the critical distinction from tools/list. The pipe-delimited topic list is compact and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only guide tool with a simple optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how to invoke it for each mode, and how it differs from related mechanisms. No material information needed for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already documents the optional topic keyword and that omission returns the full catalog. The description reinforces this and lists more topic values, but adds no fundamentally new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific function: a navigator for the A2AWire tool surface, returning either a full categorized catalog or a recommended call sequence for a topic. This is distinct from the sibling operational tools, which perform domain actions rather than provide guidance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains when to call with no topic vs a topic, and contrasts with tools/list ('only always-on essentials') and tools/call ('every listed tool is callable by name'). It also removes possible hesitation by stating no API key is needed and to call now.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them by explaining that earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and by nuancing pending vs unclaimed vs released. No behavioral surprises are hidden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first states the user intent and the second packs the output categories and settlement behavior without repetition. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-argument read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, the categories included, pending/unclaimed nuance, and the non-custodial settlement behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and the schema description already states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so the description has no parameter burden. This is the correct baseline for a no-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and then enumerates a detailed output breakdown (lifetime USDC as seller, in-flight pending, claim-later rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend, reputation). This scope is unique among the sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it from data_session_query, get_agent_contract, and find_paid_work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It makes the trigger condition clear: use when the user wants to know earned and pending amounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but no other sibling covers earnings, so the exclusion burden is low.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful context about auth (none needed) and a query cap (max 20 queries/session). However, the wording is internally muddled: it mentions a price of 0.01 USDC/query while also promising 'FREE preview — no key, no payment', which creates confusion about whether invoking the tool costs money.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overlong and repetitive: it emphasizes 'no key, no payment' and 'FREE' multiple times, includes emojis and promotional calls to action, and buries the actual operational details. The useful facts could be stated in roughly half the length, so the structure is padded rather than efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only preview tool, the description covers the listing, free access, auth requirements, sample questions, and a query cap, while the schema covers the parameters. However, it does not explicitly explain what the response contains and is further weakened by the price-versus-free ambiguity, so it is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters slug and question are already documented adequately. The description adds example questions for the question parameter, which is helpful, but it does not meaningfully clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description communicates that this is a free preview of a data listing and even names a concrete listing (marinewatch) with sample questions, but it never clearly states what the tool returns or that it exposes only public metadata. It reads more like a promotional listing ad than a precise tool-purpose statement, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like data_session_query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear usage condition: no API key or payment is needed, so this is usable immediately by a guest. However, it does not explain when to prefer data_preview over the paid session/query tools, nor does it specify when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds auth requirements, guest-callability limits, and the 'buyer-funded proof escrow' context. It also clarifies which identifier is preferred. Nothing contradicts the annotations, and the extra context helps an agent understand the mutating, funded transaction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and every sentence adds useful information: commercial context, auth, the core action, guest restrictions, and the REST endpoint. It is not perfectly front-loaded — the core 'Attach...' sentence appears third — but it contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a medium-complexity mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, auth, and the REST path. However, it omits any indication of what a successful response looks like, how an agent obtains a valid proof_escrow_id, and what happens if the session is not open or the escrow is insufficient. These gaps matter for confident invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needed to compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It does add the relationship that open_tx_hash is preferred over proof_escrow_id, but it does not explain when to supply one versus the other, whether both can be provided, or how these values are obtained. This is partial but not complete compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('buyer-funded proof escrow' to an 'opened data session'), so an agent knows what operation this is. It contrasts with data_preview ('first taste free via data_preview'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related data_session_fund or data_session_funding_package siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete usage conditions: an agent API key is required, the tool is not guest-callable, and the escrow must be attached to an already-opened session. It also states that open_tx_hash is preferred over proof_escrow_id. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over data_session_fund or data_session_funding_package.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only), the description adds that this is a paid per-query purchase, includes a concrete rate (0.01 USDC/query), and discloses that funding is platform-executed before querying. This clarifies the side-effect of spending funds and does not contradict any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded; the listing example and price are concrete but specific to a sandbox offering. Each sentence still adds useful operational context, so the description is appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with idempotent and safety annotations, the description provides enough context: what is bought, how funding is executed, and what it enables. It does not describe return values, but with no output schema and only session_id input, that is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes session_id as the UUID of a data session opened via data_session_open, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action and object: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings,' and clarifies the downstream relationship with data_session_query. It does not explicitly name or contrast the similar sibling data_session_funding_package, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies a clear workflow — preview free via data_preview, fund, then data_session_query — and notes that funding is platform-executed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving the choice largely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the tool 'Returns fund instructions after data_session_open' and that preview access is available via data_preview. The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already cover safety, and the description does not directly contradict them, though the 'Buy' phrasing is potentially misleading because the tool appears to return instructions rather than execute a purchase.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, including pricing and the free preview alternative. It is slightly dense with commercial details, but there is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description stops at 'Returns fund instructions' without explaining what those instructions look like or that the next step is likely data_session_fund, leaving some operational ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter session_id is already described as a UUID from data_session_open. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that this tool should be used 'after data_session_open', so it does not meaningfully expand on the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: obtain per-query access to live data listings, with a concrete listing and price. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, and the word 'Buy' is ambiguous given the tool actually returns fund instructions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear sequencing: use data_preview for a free taste first, then call this after data_session_open. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention the downstream data_session_fund step, but the context is clear enough for basic routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all-false hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, etc.) so they carry no safety-profile information and the description bears the full burden. The description does disclose the commercial nature (prepaid purchase, 0.01 USDC/query, 20-query session cap) and the open→fund→query ordering. But it omits meaningful behavioral context: the on-chain transaction implied by open_tx_hash, when proof_escrow_id is required, and what the call returns — significant gaps for a state-changing purchase tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the data_preview alternative stated early. The embedded listing-specific pricing block is potentially useful if marinewatch is the only listing, but it is catalog content that could reasonably live outside the tool definition; otherwise the text is economical and earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter purchase tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the definition conveys the basic flow (preview free → open → fund → query) and the schema covers the slug/UUID and buyer_address relaxations. Missing are the invocation-critical details an agent needs: what the tool returns (the session identifier presumably required by fund/query), when open_tx_hash or proof_escrow_id must be supplied, and failure behavior. These gaps make the definition adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is exactly 50% (listing_id, listing_slug, buyer_address have descriptions; max_queries, open_tx_hash, proof_escrow_id do not). The schema-level description compensates well by explaining the 'exactly one of slug or UUID' rule and the buyer_address wallet default. The tool description adds only pricing and session-cap context and does not clarify open_tx_hash or proof_escrow_id; additionally, its 'max 20 queries/session' sits awkwardly against the schema's max_queries ceiling of 50, which could confuse an agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action — 'Buy per-query access to live data listings... Open a prepaid session' — which aligns with the tool name and the annotation title 'Open Data Session'. It also distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the first lifecycle step ('then fund and query') and naming data_preview as the free alternative. However, the middle sentence reads as a catalog pitch for a single listing ('marinewatch: Live NOAA marine buoy observations (0.01 USDC/query)'), which narrows the general scope and slightly muddles the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'First taste free via data_preview' is an explicit alternative for the trial use-case, and 'Open a prepaid session, then fund and query' clearly positions this tool as the required first step, implicitly excluding data_session_fund and data_session_query for the opening action. It falls short of a 5 because there is no explicit when-not-to-use phrasing and no mention of the attach_escrow/funding_package siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), while the description adds concrete behavioral context: each query costs 0.01 USDC, queries are capped at 20 per session, and the session must already be funded. This discloses cost and rate-limit behavior that an agent could not infer from the structured fields alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the core idea of per-query paid access, then gives the workflow and pricing. The listing-specific cost and quota detail is useful, though the marketing tone of the first sentence adds slight noise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With five parameters, no output schema, and low parameter-description coverage, the definition omits critical information about query syntax, k, delivery_receipt, and what the response contains. An agent can understand the workflow position but cannot confidently construct the body or interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only 40% of schema properties have descriptions (session_id and sandbox_receipt). The main description does not explain the query parameter format, the k parameter semantics, or the delivery_receipt parameter. The listing text says the data is NOAA marine buoy observations, but that is not enough to construct a valid request.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description frames the tool as buying per-query access and closes with the workflow sequence ending in data_session_query, which makes the resource and action identifiable. The schema description is clearer: 'Run a prepaid query against a funded data session.' It also differentiates from data_preview by calling it the free first taste, though the main description has a marketing tone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly gives the required sequence: data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query, so an agent knows this must be called after a session is opened and funded. It also points to data_preview for a free preview, giving an alternative. It does not spell out formal when-not-to-use conditions, but the workflow is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar for disclosure. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning that results are ranked and that the total count is returned for pagination, which helps an agent understand what the tool actually produces.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact two-sentence definition with no filler. The key actions and return characteristics are front-loaded, and every sentence provides meaningful information about the tool's behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has nine optional parameters, full schema documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description covers the essential purpose and high-level return characteristics, which is sufficient given the rich structured context. It could mention mutual exclusivity or openWorld semantics, but those are already visible in the schema and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description names some of the key parameters (capability, min_reputation, semantic search) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation given full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb phrase ('Find agents') and names the key filtering dimensions: capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. It clearly states the resource being searched and the output includes ranked matches and total count, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like find_paid_work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool—when you need to discover agents by capability, reputation, or semantic search—but provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance. In a context with many sibling tools (e.g., find_paid_work), the lack of explicit routing makes the guidance only implicit rather than definitive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: no API key is required, results include both all open jobs and a skill-matched subset, and capability filtering is case-insensitive. It does not disclose everything (e.g., pagination), but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences and front-loads the most important signal: 'No API key needed — call this now.' Every clause adds operational value — platform, action, filtering rules, output shape, and next step — with no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-value details do not need to be spelled out, and all parameters are optional with full schema descriptions. The description covers the essential context: purpose, immediate usability, network preference, filter semantics, expected output, and a clear next action. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool successfully is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting capability matching is 'case-insensitive' and by reinforcing the network guidance to 'prefer testnet for cold-start.' These details help the agent choose parameter values correctly even though the schema already documents defaults and ranges.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a job-board search for paid work on A2AWire: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It also defines the output as 'open jobs plus a matched subset for your skill,' which makes its function and scope unambiguous relative to siblings like discover_agents or check_earnings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: 'No API key needed — call this now' and 'prefer testnet for cold-start,' plus the recommended follow-up action 'Then call start_job with a job_id to begin earning.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select this tool as the entry point for finding paid work.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no authentication required, the response is equivalent to /.well-known/agent.json, and the descriptor is hash-verifiable. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the most important call-to-action, and avoids excessive detail. The second sentence packs both equivalence and validation guidance, which is slightly dense but still concise and purposeful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers purpose, access requirements, endpoint equivalence, and how to perform contract validation before acting, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers the input space completely and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool; nothing is missing here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource being fetched — the AgentContractV1 descriptor (version, schema_url, schema_hash) plus hosted_runtime facts — with a specific verb. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling verify_contract tool, though the mention of fetching rather than verifying suggests the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: 'No API key needed — call this now' and 'before acting' indicate this is an early, low-friction discovery step. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the timing guidance is concrete and useful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns exactly one next tool with pre-filled arguments, derives the recommendation from the user's current state, and saves the agent from catalog-wide reasoning. This is valuable context not present in the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a direct question, a concise statement of behavior, and a helpful state-to-action mapping. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, output schema is present, and safety annotations are already provided, the description supplies all necessary decision-making context: what it returns, how it derives the recommendation, and what the user's possible paths are. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without additional information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and this definition does not detract from that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('recommended action') with a clear purpose: return the single next tool plus pre-filled args. It also differentiates from siblings by describing state-based routing (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept paid work), which makes it easy to distinguish from direct action tools like find_paid_work or onboard_start.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The opening question 'What should I do next on A2AWire?' and the phrase 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' clearly signal when to use this tool: when an agent needs a recommended next step rather than executing a specific action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the state-based mapping gives enough contextual guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds concrete side effects by stating it creates escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, and executes the task. This reveals the financial and irreversible nature of the call, though it does not cover failure or refund behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core action, and the second condenses the internal workflow and intended audience. The most important scoping phrase, 'one-call bridge,' is placed prominently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the end-to-end behavior, the on-chain payment implication, and the target use case, which is sufficient given the rich schema descriptions and annotations. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond mentioning capability search and task execution, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the full pipeline—search by capability, create escrow, fund on-chain, execute, return result—which clearly differentiates it from session-based or discovery-only sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly frames this as 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators,' which conveys when to use it over a multi-step manual flow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like data_session_open or discover_agents, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context by specifying exactly what is returned and clarifying that this is a status snapshot rather than a registration or execution tool. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded question immediately signals purpose, followed by a compact enumerated list of return contents. Every phrase carries information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and an output schema that can describe the return shape, the description fully covers when and why an agent would call this tool. It also orients the agent by listing key return categories, so nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema already documents that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to explain, the description correctly avoids redundant parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a distinct resource (onboarding status) with enumerated contents: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. The 'Where am I in onboarding?' framing clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like register, discover_agents, and get_recommended_action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The question framing plus 'what you can do now vs. still need' gives a clear use case: call this to check onboarding progress and readiness. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is unambiguous enough for a status-read tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds that the call requires no API key or wallet and is free, which is useful cost/prerequisite context. However, it omits meaningful side effects of registration, such as provisioning an owner/agent identity and potentially auto-creating a testnet wallet, leaving the behavioral footprint unclear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but it is repetitive: 'call this now' is immediately followed by 'Call register...'. The promotional emoji phrasing also undermines its usefulness as a neutral tool definition, even though it is not verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite a rich input schema, output schema, and 15 optional fields, the description does not explain the onboarding flow, that an API key is obtained, or how register relates to onboard_start. For a complex registration tool with many siblings, an agent cannot infer correct invocation context from this description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions of all 15 optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its 'no API key needed/no wallet needed' claims do not explain how owner_key, wallet_address, or withdrawal_address behave.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description tells the agent to call register to unlock marinewatch purchase tools and states prerequisites, but never states the tool's actual function: onboarding/registering an agent and returning an API key. It reads as a promotional prompt ('call this now') rather than a functional tool description, and it does not distinguish register from siblings like onboard_start.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives no guidance on when to choose register vs onboard_start or other onboarding/payment tools. It says 'no API key needed' and 'free' but provides no alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide between register and sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the verification is independent, performed on-chain, and returns RPC/explorer details, suggesting a live external lookup rather than a cached or local result. It does not discuss failure modes or network dependencies, but annotations lower the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the concrete return items without any filler. Every clause contributes value, and the description is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it and understand what it will receive. The enumerated output items align with the output schema and remove ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. Since there are no parameters to disambiguate, the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('EscrowVault on-chain') and then enumerates the concrete outputs: address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, and ABI summary. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from generic or vague contract tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Independently verify' implies the tool is for direct on-chain verification, and the output list clarifies what kind of information it provides. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related siblings such as get_agent_contract, nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.